Consensus versus Unanimity

Which Carries More Weight

Dados Bibliográficos

ID8396609
AutoresFinnur Dellsén (0000-0003-4989-4204, autor correspondente)
Ano2025
Volume76
Fascículo2
Páginas373-395
Data de publicação2025-06-01
Peer ReviewedSim
Open AccessNão
TipoARTICLE
PeriódicoThe British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (JOURNAL)
Identificadores do periódicoISSN: 0007-0882 • E-ISSN: 1464-3537
EditoraUniversity of Chicago Press (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1086/718273
OpenAlexW3209688620
IdiomaEN
Citações recebidas5
Referências citadas40

Around 97% of climate scientists endorse anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human activities are partly responsible for recent increases in global average temperatures. Clearly, this widespread endorsement of AGW is a reason for non-experts to believe in AGW. But what is the epistemic significance of the fact that some climate scientists do not endorse AGW? This paper contrasts expert unanimity, in which virtually no expert disagrees with some theory, with expert consensus, in which some non-negligible proportion either rejects or is uncertain about the theory. It is argued that, from a layperson’s point of view, an expert consensus is often stronger evidence for a theory’s truth than unanimity. Several lessons are drawn from this conclusion, e.g. concerning what laypeople should infer from expert pronouncements, how journalists should report on scientific theories, and how working scientists should communicate with the public

Epistemology · Philosophy of science · Political science · Sociology · Unanimity · Epistemology, Ethics, and Metaphysics · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Free Will and Agency · Law · Philosophy